On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
I (and maybe others as well who follow the same logic I follow) don't see a large enough gap between C++11 lambdas and Boost.Phoenix/Lambda/Bind function objects that merits being addressed by local functions. Until you can convince us that local functions are "absolutely necessary" and that C++ should have it because it makes certain programming paradigms/techniques possible, I'm afraid what you have is a solution that's looking for a problem.
1) I don't think I have to convince anyone. Following Boost process, I have first asked for interest in the library about ~1year ago plus all the reviewers have answered the question:
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? With that information I am confident that the review manager will be able to assess the library usefulness taking into consideration the opinion of /all/ the people that reviewed the library.
Actually, you kinda have to convince people -- especially now that questions have been raised by members of the community, both in the review and on this thread. There have been "non-inclusion" votes already sent in. I'll throw my hat into that side of the ring too now if it's not too late and too much work to write a review.
2) As for local functions, namespace, or global structs see N2511. If you disagree with N2511 arguments, it's truly OK because IMO everyone is free to use whatever idiom they see fit for themselves and their problem domain. I am sure the library reviewers had namespaces and global structs in mind when they assessed the "potential usefulness of the library" (also because these are mentioned in the library docs). So also in this case /all/ submitted reviews should allow the review manager to come to a conclusion on this issue.
Sure, but again I don't see what's in N2511 that's not doable with C++11 lambda's. So in no uncertain terms am I expressing my opinion in the context of this thread that for libraries like Local, *no*, this should not be a library but rather should be a proper language extension for it to provide any real advantage over whatever is already out there and especially what's already in C++11.
3) [MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL] This thread is about "should new libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03" be considered for admission in Boost or not. It's not about the usefulness of Local, namespace, struct, Phoenix, etc. Let's all try to provide the review manager with this piece of information about C++11, C++03, and Boost.
But I've already done that part -- see my first response. I responded to your post because you brought up the comparison with Phoenix. I don't know if you noticed but the context of my whole reply was exactly that, the relationship between C++11, C++03, and Boost where the case in point is the Local library under review. Cheers -- Dean Michael Berris http://goo.gl/CKCJX